'Nearly 50 years after President Lyndon B Johnson launched the "war on poverty" program that ushered in social security, Medicare and Medicaid amongst others ...'

Perhaps it's because those tactics are fundamentally flawed. Oh, and a nice tip of the hat to LBJ's alterations to SS.

Typically though, the old saw goes, poverty and homelessness aren't a problem when Democrats are in charge. It's an old concern trolling that goes back decades. Homelessness stopped being a problem when Clinton was elected and started back up when W Bush won.

Mrbogey:Typically though, the old saw goes, poverty and homelessness aren't a problem when Democrats are in charge. It's an old concern trolling that goes back decades. Homelessness stopped being a problem when Clinton was elected and started back up when W Bush won.

8 million people were lifted out of poverty under Clinton. 8.3 million fell back into poverty under W. Maybe poverty and homelessness are perceived as less of a problem because it becomes less of a problem when Democrats are in charge.

Dusk-You-n-Me:8 million people were lifted out of poverty under Clinton. 8.3 million fell back into poverty under W. Maybe poverty and homelessness are perceived as less of a problem because it becomes less of a problem when Democrats are in charge.

Dusk-You-n-Me:Mrtroll: Typically though, the old saw goes, poverty and homelessness aren't a problem when Democrats are in charge. It's an old concern trolling that goes back decades. Homelessness stopped being a problem when Clinton was elected and started back up when W Bush won.

8 million people were lifted out of poverty under Clinton. 8.3 million fell back into poverty under W. Maybe poverty and homelessness are perceived as less of a problem because it becomes less of a problem when Democrats are in charge.

More to the point, Clinton actually went to work fixing the problem. Whereas lowering the top tax bracket 3.6% and playing geopolitical hopscotch were more important to Bush.

Mrbogey:Dusk-You-n-Me: 8 million people were lifted out of poverty under Clinton. 8.3 million fell back into poverty under W. Maybe poverty and homelessness are perceived as less of a problem because it becomes less of a problem when Democrats are in charge.

[blogs-images.forbes.com image 678x460]

Okay, you're right. If only the War on Poverty never got in the way, we'd have like -30% poverty.

OK, subby, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy that uses a slightly simplified view of society. Imagine all of America with a population of only 10 people. OK? And in this 10-person America, just for the sake of argument, "middle class" is considered having an income of $4200 per year. Yes, I know, that's unrealistic. Like I said, simplified.

Now, this society, like ours, has a top 1 percent who are the wealthy job creators. So that's one person who in this society earns triple income...that's $15000. The next 6 under him -- numbers 2 through 7 -- they're middle class, so they earn $6000 each. And the bottom two, they're poor. They only earn $3000 each.

OK, got it?

Now, the poorest two people don't pay taxes, just like in real life. So they get to keep all $3000 of their dollars and spend it on whatever the want, prime rib or rims for their hoopdies or sneakers or whatever. The middle class, they get taxed at 25 percent. So they're not *actually* worth $6000 each...they're only worth $4500. Hmm...you see what just happened there? Taxes actually pushed them almost to the poverty line. That's another issue, though, we'll deal with that another time.

Now, the job creator. He's taxed at 40 percent, which means that his $15000 is really only $9000. That's $9000 he now has to put back into the economy, by creating new jobs, giving raising, donating to charity, etc. So, divide $9000 by the remaining 9 people, that's $1000 each. What's that mean?

It means that the middle class is back up to $5500 -- just over middle class -- and the poor are up to $4000. Still poor.

Now, what happens if you cut the job creator's taxes to, say 20 percent? Now he's worth $12000. That divided by 9? $1333. Add that to the poor's $3000, and what's happened?

That's right. Poverty has disappeared.

Think about what you say before you say it, subby. Hurtful snark gets you nowhere.

Mrbogey:'Nearly 50 years after President Lyndon B Johnson launched the "war on poverty" program that ushered in social security, Medicare and Medicaid amongst others ...'

Perhaps it's because those tactics are fundamentally flawed. Oh, and a nice tip of the hat to LBJ's alterations to SS.

Typically though, the old saw goes, poverty and homelessness aren't a problem when Democrats are in charge. It's an old concern trolling that goes back decades. Homelessness stopped being a problem when Clinton was elected and started back up when W Bush won.

Well, let's see here. Right this minute, there's a linked article talking about how poverty's a problem. And right this minute, a Democrat is in charge. Therefore, poverty is a problem while a Democrat is in charge. Huh, you're a liar, imagine that.

timujin:Mrbogey: 'Nearly 50 years after President Lyndon B Johnson launched the "war on poverty" program that ushered in social security, Medicare and Medicaid amongst others ...'

Perhaps it's because those tactics are fundamentally flawed. Oh, and a nice tip of the hat to LBJ's alterations to SS.

Typically though, the old saw goes, poverty and homelessness aren't a problem when Democrats are in charge. It's an old concern trolling that goes back decades. Homelessness stopped being a problem when Clinton was elected and started back up when W Bush won.

Well, let's see here. Right this minute, there's a linked article talking about how poverty's a problem. And right this minute, a Democrat is in charge. Therefore, poverty is a problem while a Democrat is in charge. Huh, you're a liar, imagine that.

This is different. Obama is ineffectual and that is why poverty is so high. He'd rather raise taxes and enlarge the government and it's free programs than fix anything. He's working hard to hurt the poor. What a lazy lieberal.

timujin:Well, let's see here. Right this minute, there's a linked article talking about how poverty's a problem. And right this minute, a Democrat is in charge. Therefore, poverty is a problem while a Democrat is in charge. Huh, you're a liar, imagine that.

First of all, the Guardian is criticizing the lack of coverage of poverty in the US media. Second of all, the Guardian isn't a US media outlet.

Mrbogey:timujin: Well, let's see here. Right this minute, there's a linked article talking about how poverty's a problem. And right this minute, a Democrat is in charge. Therefore, poverty is a problem while a Democrat is in charge. Huh, you're a liar, imagine that.

First of all, the Guardian is criticizing the lack of coverage of poverty in the US media. Second of all, the Guardian isn't a US media outlet.

Should I use hand puppets so you can understand this better?

You do impress me with how quickly you move those goalposts.

Prior to this, no one was talking about poverty in America during Obama's term in office, not once in any U.S. news outlet was the topic broached. Or, you're just full of shiat.

Funny thing about welfare people. First they appreciate the handouts, then they expect them, then they take them for granted, and finally, they resent them. They hate the people who are literally putting food on their table, paying their rent and earning their welfare money. It's not enough, it's never enough.

Sure we have tons of poors in this country, but hey, poors in other countries have it much worse, so ours better not complain too loudly, cause the GOP is always looking for a reason to cut food assistance and unemployment insurance.

Mrbogey:Dusk-You-n-Me: 8 million people were lifted out of poverty under Clinton. 8.3 million fell back into poverty under W. Maybe poverty and homelessness are perceived as less of a problem because it becomes less of a problem when Democrats are in charge.

[blogs-images.forbes.com image 678x460]

You are bad at inferring things from graphs and should not be allowed to brain unsupervised.

Mrbogey:timujin: Well, let's see here. Right this minute, there's a linked article talking about how poverty's a problem. And right this minute, a Democrat is in charge. Therefore, poverty is a problem while a Democrat is in charge. Huh, you're a liar, imagine that.

First of all, the Guardian is criticizing the lack of coverage of poverty in the US media. Second of all, the Guardian isn't a US media outlet.

Should I use hand puppets so you can understand this better?

And there it is. Has anyone else noticed how over the past few weeks right wingers have become increasing defensive and belligerent? Desperation is never a good look guys.

Il Douchey:Funny thing about welfare people. First they appreciate the handouts, then they expect them, then they take them for granted, and finally, they resent them. They hate the people who are literally putting food on their table, paying their rent and earning their welfare money. It's not enough, it's never enough.

Never Enough

Seems legit. We need to punish them more. That way they wouldn't want to be poor anymore.

Il Douchey:Funny thing about welfare people. First they appreciate the handouts, then they expect them, then they take them for granted, and finally, they resent them. They hate the people who are literally putting food on their table, paying their rent and earning their welfare money. It's not enough, it's never enough.

Never Enough

That has never been true, ever, and is dogmatic nonsense from lying assholes who want to steal more and more from people with less and less to steal. You know what creates systemic poverty? Wealth disparity.

Il Douchey:Funny thing about welfare people. First they appreciate the handouts, then they expect them, then they take them for granted, and finally, they resent them. They hate the people who are literally putting food on their table, paying their rent and earning their welfare money. It's not enough, it's never enough.

Never Enough

Yeah Liebruuls are the real racists. They wanna keep African and Latin Americans "on the plantation" is that how this one is gonna go?

Mrbogey:timujin: Well, let's see here. Right this minute, there's a linked article talking about how poverty's a problem. And right this minute, a Democrat is in charge. Therefore, poverty is a problem while a Democrat is in charge. Huh, you're a liar, imagine that.

First of all, the Guardian is criticizing the lack of coverage of poverty in the US media. Second of all, the Guardian isn't a US media outlet.

Il Douchey:Funny thing about welfare people. First they appreciate the handouts, then they expect them, then they take them for granted, and finally, they resent them. They hate the people who are literally putting food on their table, paying their rent and earning their welfare money. It's not enough, it's never enough.

Never Enough

Funny how nobody ever tries to make the argument that taxing capital gains at a lower rate than income breeds dependency...

Why have they not sold that ball? Why are they wasting their day not looking for a job? Look at that kid's arm; he's kinda ripped. He obviously has way too much to eat if he's able to maintain that much muscle mass.

Infernalist:Sure we have tons of poors in this country, but hey, poors in other countries have it much worse, so ours better not complain too loudly, cause the GOP is always looking for a reason to cut food assistance and unemployment insurance.

I always love that."Murikan exceptionalism! We're the greatest nation on earf!!!""Well, we've still got a lot of hungry people, homeless veterans, people that can't read. Let's keep working to reduce that.""They've got it worse in other countries! Therefore, Murika!!!""Here's this video of a cop pepper-spraying a bunch of kids sitting there, protesting peacefully. That's not what we're about.""Those goddamn liberal kids are lucky they live in Murika! If this was some other country they would've been mowed down with a farking AK!! Murika!!!""Umm, either we're a great nation, and a shining example for the rest of the world, or we're happy with being 'not the worst,' but we can't have them both. Which is it, Mr. Teabagger?""Shut up, you liberal hippie leftist! I luv muh country! Murika!""

OK, subby, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy that uses a slightly simplified view of society. Imagine all of America with a population of only 10 people. OK? And in this 10-person America, just for the sake of argument, "middle class" is considered having an income of $4200 per year. Yes, I know, that's unrealistic. Like I said, simplified.

Now, this society, like ours, has a top 1 percent who are the wealthy job creators. So that's one person who in this society earns triple income...that's $15000. The next 6 under him -- numbers 2 through 7 -- they're middle class, so they earn $6000 each. And the bottom two, they're poor. They only earn $3000 each.

OK, got it?

Now, the poorest two people don't pay taxes, just like in real life. So they get to keep all $3000 of their dollars and spend it on whatever the want, prime rib or rims for their hoopdies or sneakers or whatever. The middle class, they get taxed at 25 percent. So they're not *actually* worth $6000 each...they're only worth $4500. Hmm...you see what just happened there? Taxes actually pushed them almost to the poverty line. That's another issue, though, we'll deal with that another time.

Now, the job creator. He's taxed at 40 percent, which means that his $15000 is really only $9000. That's $9000 he now has to put back into the economy, by creating new jobs, giving raising, donating to charity, etc. So, divide $9000 by the remaining 9 people, that's $1000 each. What's that mean?

It means that the middle class is back up to $5500 -- just over middle class -- and the poor are up to $4000. Still poor.

Now, what happens if you cut the job creator's taxes to, say 20 percent? Now he's worth $12000. That divided by 9? $1333. Add that to the poor's $3000, and what's happened?

That's right. Poverty has disappeared.

Think about what you say before you say it, subby. Hurtful snark gets you nowhere.

But corporate welfare, that's just American and entitled. I'm very happy with my station in life, I'm quite comfortable but that doesn't mean that I can't recognize that the 1% aren't knowingly and gleefully farking over the poor and then acting victimized because they have to pay into the welfare system.

Trickle on economics has failed so hard and so consistently for 30 years, and conservatives just keep flagellating themselves with it. Seriously at this point what more can we do for the rich job creators before this somehow magically works? Let them shoot poor people for sport?

Il Douchey:Funny thing about welfare people. First they appreciate the handouts, then they expect them, then they take them for granted, and finally, they resent them. They hate the people who are literally putting food on their table, paying their rent and earning their welfare money. It's not enough, it's never enough.

Never Enough

Well, sure. There they are, relying on welfare and food stamps, and do you see anyone helping them?

Infernalist:Sure we have tons of poors in this country, but hey, poors in other countries have it much worse, so ours better not complain too loudly, cause the GOP is always looking for a reason to cut food assistance and unemployment insurance.

Worse yet, the louder people complain, the more likely it becomes that a lot of white rural social conservatives will look up and find out which side of the poverty line they- and most everyone they know- have really been sitting on for all these years. Can't have that.

More like the 1% has overextended itself hogging all the resources and capital in the past 50 years alone that they NEED tax cuts to continue the illusion of their wasteful flamboyant lives, both in business and privately.

OK, subby, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy that uses a slightly simplified view of society. Imagine all of America with a population of only 10 people. OK? And in this 10-person America, just for the sake of argument, "middle class" is considered having an income of $4200 per year. Yes, I know, that's unrealistic. Like I said, simplified.

Now, this society, like ours, has a top 1 percent who are the wealthy job creators. So that's one person who in this society earns triple income...that's $15000. The next 6 under him -- numbers 2 through 7 -- they're middle class, so they earn $6000 each. And the bottom two, they're poor. They only earn $3000 each.

OK, got it?

Now, the poorest two people don't pay taxes, just like in real life. So they get to keep all $3000 of their dollars and spend it on whatever the want, prime rib or rims for their hoopdies or sneakers or whatever. The middle class, they get taxed at 25 percent. So they're not *actually* worth $6000 each...they're only worth $4500. Hmm...you see what just happened there? Taxes actually pushed them almost to the poverty line. That's another issue, though, we'll deal with that another time.

Now, the job creator. He's taxed at 40 percent, which means that his $15000 is really only $9000. That's $9000 he now has to put back into the economy, by creating new jobs, giving raising, donating to charity, etc. So, divide $9000 by the remaining 9 people, that's $1000 each. What's that mean?

It means that the middle class is back up to $5500 -- just over middle class -- and the poor are up to $4000. Still poor.

Now, what happens if you cut the job creator's taxes to, say 20 percent? Now he's worth $12000. That divided by 9? $1333. Add that to the poor's $3000, and what's happened?

That's right. Poverty has disappeared.

Think about what you say before you say it, subby. Hurtful snark gets you nowhere.

OK, subby, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy that uses a slightly simplified view of society. Imagine all of America with a population of only 10 people. OK? And in this 10-person America, just for the sake of argument, "middle class" is considered having an income of $4200 per year. Yes, I know, that's unrealistic. Like I said, simplified.

Now, this society, like ours, has a top 1 percent who are the wealthy job creators. So that's one person who in this society earns triple income...that's $15000. The next 6 under him -- numbers 2 through 7 -- they're middle class, so they earn $6000 each. And the bottom two, they're poor. They only earn $3000 each.

OK, got it?

Now, the poorest two people don't pay taxes, just like in real life. So they get to keep all $3000 of their dollars and spend it on whatever the want, prime rib or rims for their hoopdies or sneakers or whatever. The middle class, they get taxed at 25 percent. So they're not *actually* worth $6000 each...they're only worth $4500. Hmm...you see what just happened there? Taxes actually pushed them almost to the poverty line. That's another issue, though, we'll deal with that another time.

Now, the job creator. He's taxed at 40 percent, which means that his $15000 is really only $9000. That's $9000 he now has to put back into the economy, by creating new jobs, giving raising, donating to charity, etc. So, divide $9000 by the remaining 9 people, that's $1000 each. What's that mean?

It means that the middle class is back up to $5500 -- just over middle class -- and the poor are up to $4000. Still poor.

Now, what happens if you cut the job creator's taxes to, say 20 percent? Now he's worth $12000. That divided by 9? $1333. Add that to the poor's $3000, and what's happened?

That's right. Poverty has disappeared.

Think about what you say before you say it, subby. Hurtful snark gets you nowhere.

You, sir, are a national treasure. Luckily for us you are one of the essentials, and your tenure will continue regardless of how long the shutdown lasts.

Is it just me, or does the graph posted above actually making the opposite point of its poster? It looks to me that after LBJ was out of office(who was in charge next, hmmm) it trends upward followed by slight decline under the leadership of history's former greatest monster, then back up under the greatest hero America has ever known then back down under Clinton, back up under Bush2.

SevenizGud:Well, the losers already pay 0%, so how would you cut their taxes? Reduce the tax rate to -40%?

The poor don't have to pay sales tax on anything? I wish I was poor! They get off easy compared to those over burdened rich people who have to pay 11% income tax. Plus the fees that go to parking their capital gains overseas but that goes to the lawyers, not the government.

OK, subby, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy that uses a slightly simplified view of society. Imagine all of America with a population of only 10 people. OK? And in this 10-person America, just for the sake of argument, "middle class" is considered having an income of $4200 per year. Yes, I know, that's unrealistic. Like I said, simplified.

Now, this society, like ours, has a top 1 percent who are the wealthy job creators. So that's one person who in this society earns triple income...that's $15000. The next 6 under him -- numbers 2 through 7 -- they're middle class, so they earn $6000 each. And the bottom two, they're poor. They only earn $3000 each.

OK, got it?

Now, the poorest two people don't pay taxes, just like in real life. So they get to keep all $3000 of their dollars and spend it on whatever the want, prime rib or rims for their hoopdies or sneakers or whatever. The middle class, they get taxed at 25 percent. So they're not *actually* worth $6000 each...they're only worth $4500. Hmm...you see what just happened there? Taxes actually pushed them almost to the poverty line. That's another issue, though, we'll deal with that another time.

Now, the job creator. He's taxed at 40 percent, which means that his $15000 is really only $9000. That's $9000 he now has to put back into the economy, by creating new jobs, giving raising, donating to charity, etc. So, divide $9000 by the remaining 9 people, that's $1000 each. What's that mean?

It means that the middle class is back up to $5500 -- just over middle class -- and the poor are up to $4000. Still poor.

Now, what happens if you cut the job creator's taxes to, say 20 percent? Now he's worth $12000. That divided by 9? $1333. Add that to the poor's $3000, and what's happened?

That's right. Poverty has disappeared.

Think about what you say before you say it, subby. Hurtful snark gets you nowhere.

F*CKING GENIUS

Ehhh, he accurately re-created the incredible amounts of herp and derp found on the right, but none of the humor regularly expected from PN. There are plenty of lesser posters to get regular non-funny trolling from. Disappointing. 8/10 on the normal troll scale, but only 2 or 3/10 on the PN scale.

Yeah, the Guardian is basically arguing here that the issue of Americans living in poverty is either under-represented or not represented at all in American media when in fact there is one "news" channel that can reliably be called upon to misrepresent the issue on a regular basis.

Which seems only fitting for a media concern that carriers water for the one political party that actively disdains the working poor and the out and out impoverished.